There are so many things that could go wrong between now and 2012, but mainly 2012, and more specifically December of 2012. Would you believe December 21, 2012? Primarily the specific date comes from the Mayan long count calendar also known as Winaq May Kin which covers some 5,200 Mayan years or 5,125 Gregorian years. But, did the Mayans know what we know today about the bad mood that our Sun seems to be in?

The sun seems to be developing a severe case of acne and it's not too happy about that. And if the Sun is in a foul mood, you can count on we her on planet earth hearing about it. While the Sun is some 93,000,000 miles away (thankfully), we feel the effects of any bad days it may be in. When such happens, scientist Roger Remy calls such mood breakdowns as "making mayonnaise", or having eaten some bad mayonnaise. Whatever!

Let me tell you what we do know- scientifically.

1-The sun has an eleven year cycle.2-Galileo was the first person to tell us this when he invented the telescope in 1610. 3-The cycle has a low end acne break out on the face or surface and a high end.4-Bad things happen when the high end of activity breaks out and the acne boils fester big time!.5-Since 1940 the festering peaks or outbreaks have become more severe.6-In this current cycle which was to be in it's low activity in 2005, the Sun went nuts!

So, the question we should ask ourselves as rational people is will we see something really bad come 2012 when the Sun is at it's worst behavior? I mean as little as 0.5% increase in the Suns energy would take out all of our satellites and where would we be without our Blackberry? How much firepower advantage would our army have with "unguided missiles"?

Case in point. At the end of 2004, when the Sun was to be getting some acne relief, it threw a hissy-fit, belching out massive amounts of radiation. On December 30th a tsunami killed hundreds of thousands of people in the Indian Ocean. Things settled down as it should be until late summer when once again, radio-active blemishes appeared suddenly, just ahead of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. Coincidence?

How about the massive solar radiation storm in March 1989 that took out the Hydro-Quebec power grid putting more than 6,000,000 Canadians in the dark? Coincidence? All this makes the Al Gore concept of Global Warming seem a bit trivial doesn't it!

Scientists from all over the world have confirmed that the Sun has been more turbulent in the past 50 years (and increasingly so) than it has for at least the last 11,000 years. I wonder how they know that! And those same scientists say that the Sun will reach it's peak eleven year cycle in 2012. Thee you go. More bad news! But, Grandma Chandra sees this as a time when man's consciousness will be increased and we will somehow be able to spiritually-consciously alter the state of the universe.

Wake up and smell the coffee Al (as in Gore). That's not hydrocarbons in the air. It's something much more powerful. The true global warming that we are facing as inhabitants of this planet called earth is beyond some sort of Kyoto treaty fix. We need to move from what Al Gore has to say about global warming and listen to what Alexey Dmitriev is saying. After all, he's not a recycled politician buy one of the world's greatest geophysicists. He simply says global warming is galactic warming. Work with that one.

Is there global warming? That's the initial question. And my answer is YES! The real question though is what's the cause of global warming. Al Gore has his answers and political solutions but those pale in the presence of the reality of the truth. Dmitriev says that there are three causes of the global warming, which in all actuality is galactic warming!

1-Dynamic incremental conditions of interplanetary medium.2-Energetic effects of planetary configuration of the Solar system.3-Impulses from the center of the galaxy.

Say what?

Interpretation of tongues is that the entire solar system is heating up and I'm afraid that Al Gore does not have a fix for that. Some proof of such a scenario would include the doubling of the magnetic field of Jupiter. Jupiter also has a red spot (Oval BA) which has doubled essentially verifying that an electromagnetic storm (the size of the earth) is heating up. The atmosphere of Mars is becoming more dense. The atmosphere of Venus is changing in chemical composition and even optical quality. Uranus and Neptune are showing major magnetic pole shifts. The bottom line is that ALL planets are heating up.

Why?

Every morning we get up we subconsciously are aware that this ground on which we live is rotating. We also are aware that the whole of the planet is also rotating around the sun (can you say 2008 vs. 2007?). But, what we're not aware of is that we are passengers of a Solar System which is rotating around the Milky Way galaxy. And then there's our galaxy which is moving around within this universe, which is a universe moving round other universes?

It's gets too damned difficult and complex at times now doesn't it. So, how did the Mayans know about black holes and polar shifts?

According to Dmitriev, we are moving into some interstellar turbulence. Fasten your seat belts ladies and gentlemen. Not all oceans are the same. From the calm Indian Ocean to the stormy North Atlantic, water is water but it has different dynamics. And even a calm Indian Ocean can have a tsunami change things. Space is space but there are currents and distubences therein. Dmitriev has used the 1977 and 1988 Voyager data to forecast rough seas ahead: turbulent heliosphere sailing. This is much more serious than weird weather patterns on planet earth.

Even our sun is being impacted. Activity during it's low activity season (now) is high. What can that say when it reaches a peck around 2012? Can we just write it all off?

Hey Al Gore. We have a much bigger problem here. We're going to need an exponentially expanded consciousness of everyone on the planet. Galactic global warming isn't going to be solved intellectually, but spiritually. And I know that we do have the ability and wherewithal to go there. Do we really have a choice?

Just when the "Little GREEN People" can't get enough of trying to guilt people into buying hybrids and "curly" bulbs... They have to go after an innocent lady Rabbi. As if her jewish mother hasn't done enough!? I'ts just incredibly ridiculous....they are now blaming global warming on divorces.

My apologies to all who believe in the "Global Warming Extreme " myth. Yes global warming exists. Global warming or cooling will always contunue, but the extremes of heat or cold are only guesses or call it a theory to sound important. Any wheather man can tell you it's up and down and has been since recorded time. In fact they don't even get the weather correct half the time....always a guess, but at least an intelligent one. Don't confuse Global warming from above the atmosphere with polutions below the atmosphere. I'm all for cleaning the planet or at least my part of it. Pick any ariticle professing doom by global warming and take note of how many times time these "GREEN chicken littles" use words like, "if, probably, likely, could happen," and then refer to scientists only from their global club the IPCC, most of whom are acitivists from the beginning. Why wouldn't they jump on the Gore money wagon. I'm no longer going to refer to them as the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change), they are now called the IFCCc, ( IF by Chance it Changes commitee.)Let's be honest, mother nature should have gotten the Nobel, and I'm pretty sure God doesn't need it. This is just my personal belief, so if you come back angry at me, it says alot about how much you believe yours. I'm not an acitivist in any way, I just decided to read and form an opinion for myself. Do the same and come to your own opinion. Don't just agree with someone elses or because it's fashionable or you miss the 60s if you were here.

I was privileged to work with John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel in the year before it became a reality and then for the first of the 6 years I was fortunate to be the Director of Meteorology. No one worked harder than John to make The Weather Channel a reality and to make sure the staffing, the information and technology was the very best possible at that time. John currently works with KUSI in San Diego. He posts regularly. I am very pleased to present his latest insightful post.

By John Coleman

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

POLLUTION vs CLIMATE By: Harvey W. Maier, Lynden WA .....It appears that air "pollution" is being confused/associated with global warming. The current political battle over global warming/climate change is a totally different subject and boils down to the fundamental issue of: "Does CO2 cause global warming?" Regardless, carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant because there would be no life on Earth, as we know it, without carbon dioxide (CO2). .....Carbon Dioxide (CO2) does not cause Global Warming because there is no past historical scientific factual evidence, data and/or records that link CO2 as a forcing factor or a cause of an increasing temperature rise climate warming period. Any current rising temperatures is not causation. ALL other global warming arguments are irrelevant, since humans are incapable of controlling any natural occurring climate change. Climate has and will forever change; there is no such thing as normal Climate.....Proxy scientific data from the past few 100,000 year 'Ice Age' terminations, reveal that the rise of CO2 levels trail the relatively abrupt temperature rise by 800-2000 years. This is the equivalent of 11-76 human lifetimes; a very very long time. .....There is scientific proxy evidence/data from past climate periods that reveal CO2 levels about 18 times greater than the CO2 levels present today; which were concurrent with non-rising temperatures equivalent of those present today. .....The best that could happen now is for an abrupt short period (30 year) climate shift to cooling. That certainly would put an end to the current global warming Goracle hysteria. {Goracle = The self deliverer, self annointed authoritative person who divines the future of Global Warming.}.....Feel free to copy, edit and/or rewrite this article

It's amazing how this week so many "spokespersons" have used the same line "Throw out the record books" all over the United States. This week the seems to have been chosen as "'insert location here' is experiencing (or will be) the hottest temperatures since 'insert date here.'" Here are a few:

The above articles all appeared in the last three days and they all contain the same exact quotation:

"Throw out the record books"

This is the mantra being parroted around the country following a bullshit report released Tuesday by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. The "report" claims to be the results of a study that claims that 2006 was an excepetionally hot year. In the " report " you will find a table that shows 10 cherry-picked locations from the lower 48 states that the authors use to make their case. I find it rather interesting that only ten locations are listed out of thousands in the continental US. Oh, and these are all surface locations that just happen to be located at airports. Anyway, you can read the report for yourself and decide whether or not the results were determined at the time of conception.

GOV. Arnold Schwarzenegger has staked his administration upon two signature issues: his international leadership to reduce greenhouse gases and his promise to construct new highways, dams, levees, aqueducts and other public works.

In April "the green governor" toured the globe to tout his greenhouse-gas bill (AB 32) that requires a 25 percent reduction in carbon dioxide by 2020, making it the most restrictive emissions law in the country. More recently, the governor toured California to tout his public-works renaissance that requires $40 billion in taxpayer-financed bonds, making it the biggest borrowing binge in the country.

Individually, these two media events, have played to rave reviews. But combined, they form a picture of breathtaking mendacity.

Schwarzenegger's crusade against greenhouse gases is the single greatest impediment to the era of public works that he has promised. And the crusade for public-works construction is the biggest impediment to reducing greenhouse gases.

To understand the dilemma requires a recap of the chemistry lecture that Schwarzenegger apparently missed.

Highways, dams, levees and aqueducts require prodigious amounts of concrete, whose central ingredient is cement. Cement is manufactured by superheating limestone to produce "clinker," which is about two-thirds of the rock's original weight. The missing third is carbon dioxide.

Lots of carbon dioxide. In fact, cement production is the third-biggest contributor of greenhouse gases in all human activity, ranking only behind internal combustion and deforestation.

And now the farce begins. Schwarzenegger's AB 32 declares carbon dioxide to be the premier environmental hazard of our era. California's Environmental Quality Act requires that any project that degrades the environment must include plans to mitigate that damage.

Last month, Attorney General Jerry Brown used AB 32 to sue San Bernardino County and threaten San Joaquin County on the grounds that their transportation plans fail to explain how they intend to construct or operate highways without increasing carbon-dioxide emissions. In short, the counties cannot proceed with construction until they can demonstrate that highways can be built without earthmovers or concrete and that, once completed, no one will use them.

Brown has suggested that the counties rethink their plans for highway construction and shift the money into mass transit, bus, bicycle and pedestrian projects instead. It's a good bet that's where most of the highway bonds will end up.

The remaining funds for dams, levees, aqueducts, schools and housing will no doubt be sidetracked into similar new-age boondoggles. Legislative plans are already afoot to divert money from Proposition 84 (the water and flood-control bond measure).

But he's legally correct. By signing AB 32, Schwarzenegger has turned his promise of a public-works renaissance into a very expensive hoax. CRO

Mr. McClintock is an expert on matters of the State budget and fiscal discipline. He is a Senator in the California State Legislature and ran for Governor in the 2003 recall election. His valuable website is found at www.tommclintock.com

Off Topic - New Rules: Bill Maher has to stop telling conservatives when they can or cannot roll their eyes.

Tuesday, May 8, 2007, 02:02 PM

New Rules: Bill Maher has to stop telling conservatives when they can or cannot roll their eyes. By Dennis E. Keizer May 8, 2007

Last Friday HBO's Bill Maher gave us "his take" on why France is so good and America is so bad. One only needs to examine the transcript to see how much envy Mr. Bill has for France...

TRANSCRIPT SOURCE: Home Box OfficeNew Rule: Conservatives have to stop rolling their eyes every time they hear the word, "France." Like just calling something "French" is the ultimate argument winner. As if to say, "What can you say about a country that was too stupid to get on board with our wonderfully-conceived and brilliantly-executed war in Iraq?"

What I can say, is that maybe the socialist government didn't feel it was in the best interest of France to "get on board" with the war in Iraq. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they did it for economic reasons. Maybe they were afraid of what the reaction from their relatively large Muslim population might be.

And, yet, an American politician could not survive if he uttered the simple, true statement, "France has a better health care system than we do, and we should steal it." Because here, simply dismissing an idea as French passes for an argument. "John Kerry? Couldn't vote for him; he looked French." Yeah, as opposed to the other guy who just looked stupid.

That's because most American politicians know that the American people aren't as stupid as leftist elites like Maher think they are. American voters understand that the French health care system comes with a high price. Taxes. We have a similar system to the north. Yet many Canadians who can afford their own medical care, come to the U.S. to get it. If socialized medicine was so good...well. As far as John Kerry goes, he lost because he looks to much like Herman Munster. Too Transylvanian, not too French.

Now, last week, France had an election, and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent of them turned out. You couldn't get 85% of Americans to get off the couch if there was an election between "Tits" and "Bigger Tits," and they were handing out free samples!

Maybe the reason the voter turnout in the US is so low is because the American voters feel frustrated by both the left and the right. Maybe they feel like their vote doesn't matter any more. Maybe they know that both parties are controlled by special interest lobbies with deep pockets like George Soros and Rupert Murdock. Maybe they fear higher taxes from the extreme left. Maybe they fear corporate greed from the right. Maybe they're afraid to elect Democrats because the ones they have elected are more afraid of a mythical CO2 Boogey-Man that might kill us in a thousand years, than they are Muslim extremists that might kill us tomorrow. Maybe they're afraid to elect Republicans because the ones they have elected are spending like drunken sailors, not conservatives.

Now, maybe the high turnout has something to do with the fact that the French candidates are never asked where they stand on evolution, prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research or gay marriage. And if the candidate knows about a character in a book other than Jesus, it's not a drawback.

Ah, so maybe if Americans don't ask our candidates any questions on issues that the left considers "settled", we'll have a higher turnout; right.

The electorate doesn't vote for the guy they want to have a croissant with; nor do they care about private lives. In the current race, Ségolène Royal has four kids, but she never got married. And she's a Socialist. In America, if a Democrat even thinks you're calling him "liberal," he grabs an orange vest and a rifle and heads into the woods to kill something!

Rather than debate this point, I simply wonder why Democrats are afraid of words like "liberal" and "socialist". Most Republicans I know are proud to be called "conservatives" or "federalists". In fact, during the Republican Presidential Debate last week, the candidates were all striving to be perceived as the most "conservative".

Madame Royal's opponent is married, but they live apart and lead separate lives. And the people are okay with that for the same reason they're okay with nude beaches; because they're not a nation of six-year-olds who scream and giggle if they see pee-pee parts!

Married but lead separate lives? Like the Clintons? Well, we elected both of them, didn't we? As far as nude beaches are concerned, I think most people are OK with them. And as long as we don't allow six-year-olds on them, the Hollywood perverts on the left won't have anything to giggle at.

They have weird ideas about privacy. They think it should be private. In France, even the mistresses have mistresses. To not have a lady on the side says to the voters, "I'm no good at multi-tasking."

Privacy? A term redefined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Privacy is good in America too, but not when it's used by radical judges to legislate from the bench. We have mistresses in America too. We just prefer to marry them.

Now, like any country, France has its faults, like all that ridiculous accordion music.

Have to agree there, but at least it's not as bad as Hip-Hop.

But, their health care is the best in the industrialized world.

For what the French pay in taxes, it damn well better be!

As is their poverty rate .

That depends on what you call poverty. Their unemployment rate is twice that of the U.S.

And they're completely independent of Mid East oil. And they're the greenest country.

That's because they use Nuclear Power. And so would we if the liberals here in U.S. would let us!

And they're not fat. And they have public intellectuals in France. We have Dr. Phil!

They have public idiots too. And we have Rosie.

They invented sex during the day, lingerie and the tongue. Can't we admit we could learn something from them?

True, but we invented soap on a rope and the electric razor and fortunately, our girls know how to use them.

So, from now on, all you high-ranking Bush Administration officials, because the French are righter than you on most things, when France comes up in conversation, you are not allowed to roll your eyes. The only time you get to do that is when your hooker from Ms. Julia is blowing you.

Most things huh? The only place where the French are righter than us, is on a map. But they did elect conservative Nicolas Sarkozy over socialist Segolene Royal, so at least they're moving in the "right" direction. This American applauds their decision. America wishes their new French leader the best, and looks forward to a renewed French-American friendship. Viva la France!

The media dialogue on global warming is infected with conservative misinformation. While consensus in the scientific community exists on the issue, too often pundits and journalists advance false, misleading, and baseless claims about the looming environmental crisis. Among the common conservative myths and falsehoods advanced in the media about global warming are unsubstantiated claims that human activity is not a substantial cause of global warming; Antarctic ice is increasing, not decreasing; former Vice President Al Gore is exaggerating; and carbon dioxide is not bad for the environment. Worse yet, over the past few years, coverage on the global warming issue has regularly:

Presented global warming skeptics without noting their relationships with the oil, gas, and coal industries.

Given global warming skeptics the same prominence as those within the large scientific consensus on the issue, thus elevating their opinions to a position nearly equal to those among the vast majority of experts.

Cited cold regional weather as evidence that global warming does not exist.

In an effort to stem the tide of conservative misinformation in global warming media coverage, Media Matters for America has embarked on a campaign to educate and inform members of the media and the American people with the facts. In the coming weeks and months, Media Matters will continue to monitor print, radio, broadcast, and Internet media and debunk these and other false global warming claims, so be sure to check back often and sign up for email updates and action alerts. To view our extensive "Myths and falsehoods about global warming," be sure to click here .

Now, let me give you my version:

The media dialogue on global warming is infected with liberal misinformation. While absolutely no consensus in the scientific community exists on the issue, too often pundits and journalists advance false, misleading, and baseless claims about the looming environmental crisis. Among the common alarmist myths and falsehoods advanced in the media about global warming are unsubstantiated claims that human activity is a substantial cause of global warming; Antarctic ice is decreasing, not increasing; former Vice President Al Gore is an expert on climate change; and carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. Worse yet, over the past few years, coverage on the global warming issue has regularly:

Attempted to discredit global warming skeptics by citing their relationships with the oil, gas, and coal industries, when in fact, many more billions of dollars are given to the alarmist scientist in the form of government grants.

Given global warming alarmists a larger prominence in the media, so as to convince the public that a consensus exists within the scientific community, in an attempt to minimize skeptics as being outside mainstream scientific conclusions.

In an effort to stem the tide of any opposing information in global warming media coverage, Media Matters for America has embarked on a campaign to misinform members of the media and the American people by presenting only the facts that support the opinion that "man is destroying the planet." In the coming weeks and months, Media Matters will continue to monitor print, radio, broadcast, and Internet media so that we can exaggerate and distort the facts as we see fit. So be sure to check back often and sign up for email updates and action alerts. To view our extensive "Myths and falsehoods about global warming," be sure to click here .

“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?” Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.

In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.

“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,” she said.

The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.

In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.

With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer.”

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.

Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.

“What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case,” Poppe said.

Only one parent questioned Poppe’s decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth” as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.

“You don’t understand someone’s position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,” Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. “I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.”

posted by Dennis Yesterday, as Senator Barbara Boxer, one of the two mommies of our nations largest nanny state, was helping Al Gore filibuster Senator James Inhofe's time away in the show hearing, these two bubble heads gleefully reported with this video on CNN. First of all, it didn't start because Inhofe "wanted shorter answers" as reported, it was the result of Al Gore rambling on and ignoring Inhofe's questions. CNN, as well as the rest of the major news networks neglected to show the several minutes prior to this exchange where Al Gore incoherently babbled his non-responses to the Senator's questions, focusing only on this one-minute segment of Boxer scolding Inhofe. Notice how the "journalists" both get an editorial in at the very end of the video. Just some more good old non-biased reporting from CNN. If anyone knows who these "anchors" are please let me know in the blog. Also, if anyone has a complete video of this exchange, please post it here.

Recently, a documentary aired on the UK’s Channel 4, entitled “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which challenged the prevailing political understanding that global warming is caused by man-made activity. The movie argues that it is in fact the sun that is responsible for the current changes in the Earth’s temperature and the film is riddled with the testimony of many scientists and climate experts, furthering a growing dissent to the man-made theory. After all, that’s all it is, a theory. As soon as people start to state that “the debate is over”, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over, that questions must be asked and answered and issues raised in order for the science to be accurate. So what exactly are the arguments behind the Sun being the main cause of global warming?

First off, it is very important to address the fact that Earth is not the only planet to be experiencing climate change in our solar system currently. In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming, and suggested that it is a seasonal event, just like how Earth’s seasons change as the various hemispheres alter their inclination to the Sun. We must remember that it is the Sun that determines our seasons, and thusly has a greater impact upon the climate than we could ever even try to achieve. In May of 2006, a report came forward revealing that a massive hurricane-like storm that occurred on Jupiter may be caused by climate change occurring on the planet, which is expected to raise its temperatures by 10 degrees. National Geographic News reported that a simultaneous rising in temperature on both Mars and Earth suggest that climate change is indeed a natural phenomenon as opposed to being man-made. The report further explains how NASA has reported that Mars’ carbon dioxide ice caps have been melting for a few years now. Sound familiar? An astronomical observatory in Russia declared that, “the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun”. They further point out that both Mars and Earth have, throughout their histories, experienced periodic ice ages as climate changes in a continuous fashion. NASA has also been observing massive storms on Saturn , which indicate a climate change occurring on that planet as well. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope has also been recording massive climate changes on Neptune’s largest moon , Triton. Triton, whose surface was once made up of frozen nitrogen, is now turning into gas. The Associated Press has reported that satellites that measure the temperature of sunlight have been recording an increase in the sun’s temperature , meaning that the sun itself is warming up. Even the London Telegraph reported in 2004 that global warming was due to the sun being hotter than it has ever been in the past 1,000 years. They cited this information from research conducted by German and Swiss scientists who claim that it is increasing radiation from the sun that is resulting in our current climate change.

Claude Allegre, a leading French scientist, who was among the first scientists to try to warn people of the dangers of global warming 20 years ago, now believes that “ increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena ”. Allegre said, “There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." He is convinced that global warming is a natural change and sees the threat of the ‘great dangers’ that it supposedly poses as being bloated and highly exaggerated. Also recently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus said, when discussing the recent ruling by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that global warming is man-made, “ Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.” And if you are about to ask why no politicians here seem to be saying this, Klaus offered up an answer, “Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”. Nigel Calder, the former editor of New Scientist, wrote an article in the UK Sunday Times, in which he stated, “When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.” He further stated that, “Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis”. And in reference to how the media is representing those who dissent from the man-made theory he stated, “they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies”, which is exactly what I believed up until I did my research. He also wrote, “Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages”.

For those who saw Al Gore’s “documentary”, it was very convincing of its hypothesis that global warming is a man-made phenomenon that has the potential to kill us all and end humanity. After all, the film was filled with graphs and charts, so it must be true. Let’s just get something straight here, Al Gore is not a climatologist, meteorologist, astronomer, or scientist of any kind; he is a politician. And as we all know, politicians always tell the truth. However, as Al Gore’s popularity grows and with his recent winning of an Academy Award for his movie, the issue has spiraled into massive push for quick action and stifled debate, forcing many scientists to speak out and challenge the political status quo. A group of scientists recently stated that the research behind Al Gore’s film and in fact, the concept of greenhouse gases causing global warming, is “a sham”. They claim that in fact, there is very little evidence to prove that theory, and that the evidence actually points to an increase in solar activity being the cause of climate change. In Gore’s movie, he presented evidence that was found in the research done on ice core samples from Antarctica, which he claimed is proof for the theory of CO2 being the cause of rising temperatures. However, this group of scientists state that “warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels”, meaning that a rise in Carbon Dioxide follows a rise in temperature, rather than increasing temperature following rising CO2 emissions. And not only that, but it follows behind the rise in temperature by about 800 years. The group also mentions that, “after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.” They also claim that the report given by the UN, which said it was backed by over 2,000 of the worlds leading scientists, “was a ‘sham’ given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.”

Timothy Ball, one of the first Canadian doctors in climatology, recently wrote an article addressing the issue of why no one seems to be listening to scientists who claim that global warming is NOT man-made . He starts by writing, “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science”. He continues, “We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.” Then he mentions how Environment Canada is spending billions upon billions of dollars on “propaganda” which defends an “indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.” Then Dr. Ball brings up a very interesting point that everyone should take into consideration, citing that 30 years ago, in the 1970s everyone was talking about “global cooling” and how it was the defining issue of our lives, our species, that our very survival depended on what we did it about it. Interesting, sounds like every Canadian politician. Ball continues to explain that climate change is occurring, but that it is because it is always occurring, it is a natural change that is a result of the changes in the Sun’s temperature. He explains that we are currently leaving what was known as a Little Ice Age and that the history of Earth is riddles with changes in the climate. That’s what climate does and is always doing, changing. Dr. Ball claims that “there is nothing unusual going on,” and that he “was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as [he was] to the threats made about Global Warming.”

Dr. Timothy Ball later wrote, in commenting on the problems that arise for scientists who speak out, that, “Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.” He also mentions how he “was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies.” He concludes in referencing others who have and continue to speak out against the prevailing myth of man-made global warming, such as author Michael Crichton, who’s book, ‘State of Fear’, explains the inaccurate science behind the man-made myth. Another prominent name is that of Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, who often speaks out against the man-made theory, yet no one seems to be listening to him.

An article in the February 12th Washington Times discussed how skeptics of global warming are “treated like a pariah”. The article begins, “Scientists skeptical of climate-change theories say they are increasingly coming under attack -- treatment that may make other analysts less likely to present contrarian views about global warming.” He cites an example of this by mentioning how a climatologist in Oregon might be stripped of his position by the governor for speaking out against the origins of climate change. Most skeptics don’t claim that climate change is not occurring, they just disagree with what is causing it, and yet they are treated like traitors. A NASA funded study in 2003 found that, “Changes in the solar cycle -- and solar output -- are known to cause short-term climate change on Earth.”

In a storm of scientists speaking out against Al Gore’s movie, an Australian professor of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory has publicly stated, "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention." In response to the use of images in Gore’s movie of glaciers breaking off, Dr. Boris Winterhalter, a professor on marine geology and former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland, said that, “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier.” Makes sense, especially since history tells us that glaciers move, after all, that’s what helped form our valleys and reshaped mountain ranges at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago. Maybe my memory isn’t very good, but I don’t think people were driving SUVs 10,000 years ago. Another clever use of images to manipulate facts that Gore has in his movie is that of a polar bear seemingly stranded on a piece of a broken off ice berg, stating that polar bears are becoming extinct because of global warming. However, there are a few things wrong with this assessment, first of all, that according to a paper published by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov , “the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise.” Secondly, if the polar bear is in such danger according to Al Gore, then why does a recent government survey in Canada show that they are not declining , but rather rising in numbers? Thirdly, the very idea of a polar bear “stranded” on a small block of ice is in itself misleading for Gore’s argument, as polar bears are excellent swimmers and according to Sea World, “They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances [and] they've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.)” Professor Carter, speaking about Gore and his personal crusade, said, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.” Even if Al Gore was telling the truth about the causes of global warming, or climate change, which most evidence points to the fact that he is not, but even if he was, he would still be a hypocrite. It was recently revealed that Al Gore doesn’t exactly practice what he preaches, such as what he said in his Academy Award acceptance speech , “People all over the world, we need to solve the climate crisis. It's not a political issue; it's a moral issue.” Well, in that case, why is it that a recent study by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research found that one of Al Gore’s mansions uses 20 times the amount of electricity that the average American does. It was also reported that Al Gore consumes twice as much the electricity in one month that the average American consumes in one year.

In examining that there is more evidence to prove the basis for a conclusion that changes in climate are more related to an increase in the temperature of the Sun rather than influence of people, we must examine why efforts to expose this myth are stifled and those who speak out are attacked. In fact, there are reported cases of scientists who speak out against the man-made theory as having received death threats . There has even been talk of relating those who speak out against the currently held theory on global warming as being equal to those who deny the Holocaust. In a recent op-ed piece in the Boston Globe commenting on the report issued by the UN, Ellen Goodman wrote , “Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.” This is a very disturbing comment, not only because there is reason to scientifically doubt the man-made theory, but also because this is a scathing attack on freedom of speech, the most vital and important of all rights and freedoms.

With the UN Panel’s judgment in, western politicians are quick to declare that the debate is over, and action must be taken immediately. What is this action that they are planning on taking? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in the UK, Gordon Brown, soon expected to be the next Prime Minister after Tony Blair steps down, has publicly called for a “new world order” to combat the threat of climate change. So let’s have a look at this New World Order that’s being implemented to combat the threat of global warming. One major thing being pushed through with little, cancel that, no debate, is a UN recommendation that we impose “a global tax on greenhouse gas emissions”. Most people will hear this and think, “Good, polluters need to be taxed”. Well, this means people who drive cars will be taxed, because according to Al Gore, when you drive your car, you’re causing global warming. This is no joke, as an article in the UK’s Guardian Newspaper reported that, “The government is throwing its weight behind a revolutionary plan that would force motorists to pay £1.30 a mile to drive on Britain's busiest roads”. That is approximately $3.00 per mile. A study conducted by an expert in transportation and infrastructure found that, “a Birmingham commuter might end up paying about £1,500 a year for driving 19,000 miles.” That’s equal to about $3,000 per year. I don’t know about you, but I don’t know many people who can afford that. In the European Union, plans are being made to impose an increase of taxes on diesel. The European Commission recently proposed to “raise the minimum tax on commercial diesel fuel by nearly 20% over the next seven years”. This, they claim, is to help protect the environment because it will act as a deterrent for people to drive. This is just excellent news, because as anyone who has driven in the past two years knows, gas prices are just too low. Another concern arising out of the concept of taxing people for how far they drive is how it is done. According to the Transport Secretary in the UK, “Every vehicle would have a black box to allow a satellite system to track their journey”. This has been raising concerns in the UK of an increase in Big Brother technology and government programs. Proposals currently being made in Canada recommend that, “Canadians would pay an extra 10 cents per litre at the gas pumps”, mirroring plans in the European Union. Another important recent news item is that Toronto “Mayor David Miller said yesterday he would support ‘region-wide’ road tolls ”, to combat climate change.

The European Union is also imposing a ban on conventional light bulbs , replacing them with energy-saving bulbs. That ban would fully be in effect within two years, forcing all 490 million citizens of the EU’s member states to switch from the current conventional lights they now have. However, some problems of this plan have been raised considering that the supposed energy-efficient light bulbs “have to be left on all the time, they're made from banned toxins and they won't work in half your household fittings. Yet Europe (and Gordon Brown) says 'green' lightbulbs must replace all our old ones.” They also are “ up to 20 times more expensive ” than conventional light bulbs. They also give off a much harsher light and do not produce a steady stream of light but rather just flicker 50 times a second. These special “efficient” light bulbs also need more ventilation than conventional bulbs, which means that they cannot be in an enclosed light fitting. I’m sure that this won’t inconvenience any of the 490 million who are being forced to switch. In Canada, talk is taking place of having a ban on conventional light bulbs being included in Stephen Harper’s clean air act. This discussion was recently brought about by the act of Australia taking moves to ban conventional light bulbs by the year 2010. As well as that, a lawmaker in California has introduced a bill to ban the selling of conventional bulbs by 2012, with a similar bill also being introduced in New Jersey. Royal Phillips Electronics, one of the leading corporations in producing light fixtures announced that they would stop selling conventional bulbs by 2016. This will result in a massive cost to the consumer, who is losing their free will in where they spend their money and how they choose to help the environment. Hoping to get by without buying new bulbs and sneak it by the government? Good luck. As a recent report pointed out in the UK, the government has very intrusive plans to make the UK the world’s first green economy. Part of this plan is that every home in the UK is to be ‘carbon neutral’ within 10 years, making every house updated to “green” standards. The government said they would provide the renovators, which has led many to fear that it is a method of spying on homeowners to make sure they go green . Blair Gibbs, a member of the Taxpayer’s Alliance and critic of the plan stated, “It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable.”

I am not saying that it isn’t a good idea to take action to help the environment, but I ask you to consider this: if the majority of scientific data points to the fact that global warming is caused by the Sun, then how will a tax on carbon emissions help to stop it? How does us driving cars cause climate change on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, Neptune and Triton? Can Al Gore please fill me in on this? If CO2 increases as a RESULT of temperature increases, then how can we hope to accomplish anything by taxing emissions? That’s like saying we will prevent the process of humans ageing by dying their grey hairs. It’s not grey hair that causes people to age; it’s ageing that causes grey hair. And nothing that you do to your hair will have any affect on how long you live. Especially since ageing is a natural process that cannot be stopped and has always occurred and will always occur. Just like climate change.

It seems worrisome that politicians are all too eager to grab onto this man-made myth of global warming in order to make us afraid and guilty. Guilty enough to want to change it, and afraid enough to give up our freedoms and undergo massive financial expenses in order to do so. So this lie, being pushed by big money and big governments, is a convenient lie for those who want to exert control and collect money. However, it’s inconvenient for the mass amount of people who are already experiencing the problems of a widening wage-gap and fading middle class.

If the problems we are being presented are based on lies, then how do we expect to find any true solution to helping the environment? A Global Tax won’t clean up the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez, which is still polluting waters in Alaska nearly 18 years after the spill occurred. A Global Tax won’t stop Shell from making the Niger Delta the most endangered Delta in the whole world. No, we have to first be realistic, mature, and have debate about the problems we are facing, and then, and only then, can we even hope to achieve any sort of solution.

Andrew Marshall is a 19 year old political science student at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia (BC).

The socialist agenda of the global warming alarmist community is showing signs of success, even here in the United States. According to a world wide poll taken by The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in conjunction with World Public Opinion-dot-org , 43% of Americans surveyed believe that global warming is a "serious and pressing problem" and that we should "begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs." An additional 37% of Americans said that "the problem of global warming should be addressed, but it's effects will be gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps that are low in cost." That means that 80% of the Americans polled think global warming needs to be dealt with.

Even more troubling, is is the way Americans answered the fourth question of the poll:

"Q4. If the less-developed countries make a commitment to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, do you think the developed countries should provide substantial aid to help them?"

A whopping 64% of Americans are willing to "provide substantial aid to less-developed countries" in order to stave off the CO2 Boogie Man.

Just when you thought it can't possibly get any more absurd, the Associated Press is reporting that NASA is reading a report a report reviewing suggestions on how to slow down global warming. One NASA scientist describes some of these proposals as ranging from "great" to "idiotic."

Some of the more bizzare proposals include...

The Giant Sun Shade:Launching an enormous fleet of small spaceships into orbit to form a giant umbrella in an effort to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth.

The Man-Made Volcano:Some scientists suggest simulating volcanic eruptions by using cannons, balloons or jet engines to launch sulfate particles into the atmosphere.

Iron Supplements: According to the AP article , one company in California is already implementing the "Geritol" solution by dumping tons of iron dust into the ocean, to encourage massive algae bloom that will absorb carbon dioxide.

The following articles pegged the bullshit meter all the way off the scale. For the purpose of this topic only, this thread reads from top to bottom, the most recent articles at the bottom. Scroll down for the latest update:

Less than 48 hours after this controversial new documentary challenging some of the assertions that man made CO2 is causing global warming aired on British TV, one of it's participants is claiming that his views were "grossly distorted" by the film. Professor Carl Wunch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology continued to say that not only was he "totally misled" and "completely misrepresented" but also that the film was "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War II."

Professor Wunsch:"I am angry because they completely misrepresented me. My views were distorted by the context in which they placed them. I was misled as to what it was going to be about. I was told about six months ago that this was to be a program about how complicated it is to understand what is going on. If they had told me even the title of the program, I would have absolutely refused to be on it. I am the one who has been swindled".

The Professor went on to say that he believes it is

Professor Wunsch:"an almost inescapable conclusion that if man adds excess CO2 to the atmosphere, the climate will warm".

After viewing these comments by the professor only hours after watching the program, I was shocked. I decided to go back and analyze the scenes in which the good professor appeared, and see if I could possibly imagine a "context" in which the actual words uttered by Professor Wunsch would have had a significantly different meaning. I could not. Maybe you can. I have printed the Professor's words as they appeared in the film, and the time at which they appeared. The film is currently available on Google Video but I don't know how long it will be there.

In this portion of the discussion, Professor Wunsch begins by explaining how the ocean's surface temperature plays a role in the exchange of carbon dioxide. He later comments on the vastness of the oceans, and their extremely slow reaction to any changes in climate as a result of such vastness.

Professor Wunsch:25:43 The ocean is the major reservoir into which carbon dioxide goes when it comes out of the atmosphere or to from which it is re-emitted to the the atmosphere. If you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide. Similarly, if you cool the ocean surface, the ocean can dissolve more carbon dioxide.

Professor Wunsch:26:44 - The ocean has a memory of past events ugh running out as far as 10,000 years. So for example, if somebody says oh I'm seeing changes in the North Atlantic, this must mean that the climate system is changing, it may only mean that something happened in a remote part of the ocean decades or hundreds of years ago who's effects are now beginning to show up in the North Atlantic. In this portion of the film, the professor is speaking about the complexity of climate models and how their results can be greatly influenced by the input data they are given.

Professor Wunsch:49:22 - The models are so complicated, you can often adjust them is such a way that they do something very exciting.

Professor Wunsch:50:46 - Even within the scientific community you see, it's a problem. If I run a complicated model and I do something to it like ugh melt a lot of ice into the ocean and nothing happens, ugh it's not likely to get printed. But if I run the same model, and I adjust it in such a way that something dramatic happens to the ocean circulation like the heat transport turns off, ugh it will be published. People will say this is very exciting. It will even get picked by the media. So there is a bias, there's is a very powerful bias within the media, and within the science community itself, toward results which are ugh dramatizable. If Earth freezes over, that's a much more interesting story than saying well you know it ugh fluctuates around, sometimes the mass flux goes up by 10%, sometimes it goes down by 20%, but eventually it comes back. Well you know, which would you do a story on? That's what it's about.

I've watched this video several times now and I can't believe the comments made in the film, and those in the above mentioned articles came from the same man. In my opinion, the Professor's words speak for themselves. I don't see how they could mean anything other than what they mean.

And speaking of bullshit...below is a great article by Alek Boyd, editor and founder of vcrisis.com.

The Great Global Warming Swindle - By Alek Boyd - One of the added benefits of having read Geology is that one can easily tell apart the bullshit from the science when it comes to earth's matters. (03/10/07)

To be fair, here is the actual letter from Carl Wunsch to WAG TV - (03/10/07)

UPDATE

In doing some further research on Professor Wunsch, I found this article from March of 2006. In it Professor Wunsch begins...

Professor Wunsch:People ask "is it clear that human activity is directly responsible for climate change?" The context for answering this question must be another question: to what extent can the climate change all by itself? The answer to the alternative question is: "a very great deal."

He also states...

Professor Wunsch:"we know that it (climate) is capable of remarkable changes without human intervention."

Finally, he closes with...

Professor Wunsch:"it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

First, I reccomend you read the entire article for the full context of Professor Wunch's remarks.

I think this last paragraph is very telling. I don't think I'm very comfortable with making policies based on probabilities. If we were to do so, what percentage of probabilities are we to make such policies based on? 90%? 70%? 50%? 25%? Precisely what percentage constitutes a probability? Should we only require 50% compliance with a policy that was enacted based on a 50% probability. Now I'm really confused. I think this mind set of the "let's do something now" crowd that disturbs me the most about this issue.

I also found this summary below. The Professor's summary is reprinted in it's entirety. Pay particularly close attention to the last two sentences:

Professor Wunsch:Summary of Abrupt Climate Change: An Alternative View by Carl Wunsch (2006) - A Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) event is a rapid climate fluctuation, taking place at the end of the Ice Age. Twenty-three such events have been identified between 110,000 and 23,000 years before present. A widely held view of abrupt climate change during the last glacial period is that these D-O events are at least hemispheric, if not global and caused by changes in ocean circulation. It has been hypothesized that there may be abrupt climate change similar to a D-O event because of ongoing global warming and its oceanic affects. Underlying the major conclusions about D-O events and abrupt climate change there are several assumptions, including (1) the 18Oxygen variations appearing in ice cores are viable as a proxy, (2) climate fluctuations in Greenland reflect those on a hemispheric or global basis, (3) the cause of D-O events can be traced to major changes of the North Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and perhaps failure of the Gulf Stream, and (4) apparent detection of a D-O event at a remote location in a proxy implies local climatic importance. In this article Wunsch reexamines these assumptions in order to assess their relevance, specifically focusing on (2) and (3). In terms of using 18Oxygen in the Greenland ice cores as a climate proxy, Wunsch found that although is was relatively accurate for central Greenland, when aligned with other locations a visual similarity would appear on the spectral graph, but that there was actually little statistical correlation; this occurred when comparing time periods of less than 900 years. While this does not disprove the hypothesis of a large impact of the D-O events, it cannot be used to support this assumption. There are three possible explanations for the disappearance of covariance for these periods less than 900 years. First, although both records have wide variability, it is primarily regional in character and there is no simple relationship between them. Second, the age-model (the calibration of age versus depth in the core) error has a larger influence on the short period variations than the long period ones. Third, different physical processes dominate the proxies at high frequency in the two separate locations, but they have roughly similar low spectral moments. Any of these factors could affect the lack of covariance between geographical locations. Subsequently, the assumption that there exist large-scale hemispheric correlations with the D-O events is neither proven nor disproven. The heat flux associated with meridional overturning (the sinking and spreading of cold water and dispersion of heat) of the ocean has the most direct impact on the atmosphere in terms of oceanic circulation patterns. The contribution of the oceanic Northern Hemisphere to this pole-ward circulation falls very rapidly as heat is transferred to the atmosphere. At the 40th latitude North, the oceanic contribution is less than 25% of the atmospheric contribution. Hypothetically, if warming continues, and the Northern Atlantic is injected with fresh water from glacial melting, the meridional overturning circulation would be dramatically reduced, resulting in a D-O-like event. However, models attempting to construct this theoretical climate change have not been successful, mostly in that they have not taken into account the overlying wind field response to this event. Since much of the temperature flux of the North Atlantic is carried in the Gulf Stream, scenarios requiring wind shifts sufficient to shut it down are likely a physical impossibility because of the need to conserve angular momentum in the atmosphere. 90 Coupled models that have been claimed to show an atmospheric response to oceanic flux shifts are so simplified and lack adequate resolution that they cannot be skillfully integrated over the time periods required to describe true climatic time scales. Again, these models are only indicators of processes that can be operating but with no evidence that they dominate. While the abrupt climate changes in Greenland may not have occurred in other parts of the globe, there still is the question of why it occurred in Greenland. One apparent observation is that the D-O events ceased in the Holocene and have been remarkably placid since. As such, the operative mechanism causing the D-O events must have also disappeared. The answer is the disappearance of the Laurentide and Fennoscandian ice sheets. Two enormous mountain ranges of high albedo (reflection factor) were removed. In a study by Jackson (2000), he noted that small, regional changes in the ice sheet elevations had a large effect on the atmospheric stationary wave patterns. As a standing wave, the wind encountering the ice sheets had more than one equilibrium state. Major local climate change could appear with a slight shift in the wave pattern of the wind system. While the model for this hypothesis is rough, other studies have indicated great influence of the ice sheets on atmospheric scales as well. The body of these theories suggests that the most important and sensitive determinant of oceanic circulation is wind, and not the temperature flux. Similarly, the widely accepted view that D-O events were of global impact and may occur as a result of recent warming is based on four assumptions, which in turn are based on ambiguous data and a high degree of uncertainty. As such, to make conclusions about such events would be imprudent without first addressing the uncertainties in the age-model as well a cautious reinterpretation of proxy signals.

So I guess from this summary, probability lies somewhere between 0% and 100%. Now I get it! The sky is falling...maybe.